Bt; The reason i ask is that if you claim the the Bible is inspired by God and XO claims that the Bible is not inspired by God and both positions are based on Faith(as concluded by Bt)or lack thereof, why is XO wrong and you are right?

Sirs; Because I'm on the record as referencing that its an act of faith. I'm not proclaiming it as some logical fact based conclusion

Bt; That does not answer my question. Why are you right and xo wrong on a faith based position?(notice again how Bt ignored my reference as to how I answered his question, and instead applied his conclusion that Xo was providing a faith based position)

.................... *drum roll*

Xo then seals the deal with: I beg your pardon? I do not have a "faith based" position. I simply said that the Bible is not the word of God, and explained why it is entirely logical to say this

That felt good. Thanks Xo

Logged

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

The Very Definition of a prophet is that they speak as instructed by God.That is how it is done, if you would do it diffrently , you can as soon as you are God.

57.Jeremiah 19:3 and say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, you kings of Judah and people of Jerusalem. This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Listen! I am going to bring a disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle. Jeremiah 19:2-4 (in Context) Jeremiah 19 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations 58.Jeremiah 19:15 “This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Listen! I am going to bring on this city and all the villages around it every disaster I pronounced against them, because they were stiff-necked and would not listen to my words.’”http://www.biblegateway.com/

BSB

The concept of religion expresses very clearly one of the skills the human mind is capable of, but it also expresses one of the dangers that skill seems to inherently posses. If a concept is just, and only, a concept, when followed it can cut us lose from the very ground of our existence. And that is a dangerous proposition. If you don't think so, read the daily newspaper.

The Buddha understood this. I think it's his main contribution. Nirvana is not a place, or something that can be aspired to. It is the mind free of attachment to concepts. It is found by a dropping away, not by an addition. It is just here, you can't search for it. The religions of the world don't understand this.

It seems to me that religion is a vital necessity for some people, and of little importance to others. It seems to me that Buddha, who thought of himself as not a deity, nor a son of a deity, nor a prophet, but simply a teacher who had found a way of dealing with the injustices and problems of existence, is far more useful from a logical standpoint than the tenets of Christianity, Judaism or Islam, which take the view that they are the only or the best way to deal with life's problems.

One can arrive at the Buddha's teachings through logic, rather than blind faith.

Logged

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BSB

If people understood religion was only concept, and didn't try to make it a truth, they could use it as a way to tap beneficial human emotions such as compassion without getting caught by dogma. But they won't.

To some, it is clearly more than a concept. Some people are predisposed to religion and others are not. Note all the immense folderol that the Tibetans have added to Buddhism, or the obsession with populating the landscape in places like Burma and Thailand with Buddha images. Apparently, some people feel that one immense Buddha statur=te is not nearly so effective as two or four or seventeen identical statues in the same sight.